I was reading a book about disasters yesterday and there was a section about the Pan Am 103 bombing. The book mentioned that the bombers intended for it to blow up over the North Atlantic, but because of a 1/2 hour delay at LHR it blew up over land instead. Lets just say the plane was delayed for a longer period of time and the bomb blew up before the plane left the ground. How big of an explosion would there have been? Would there have been a similar loss of life assuming the aircraft was loaded?

I would guess that all on board would be lost on the ground as well since all fueltanks would be full. As sad as may be..
Maybe even more casualties since we can assume there could be other fully loaded planes parked around PA 103

Quoting KL911 (Reply 1):Maybe even more casualties since we can assume there could be other fully loaded planes parked around PA 103

I was thinking that might be the case. I was just curious because the book talked about cargo coming out of the hold and doing more damage to the plane in the air. Another thought I had was a bomb like that TWA 707 bomb in 1969 where it just blew a hole in it and that was it. That plane was later repaired and flew until 1983. If that would have happened in the air it would have been sure disaster.

There would have been an explosion killing some people in F and J class and perhaps on the ground...but that is about it...the bomb used was about 1lb of symtex. It relied on altitude and decompression to do most of the damage.

Sadly, baggage handlers were lost, as the bomb exploded after arrival in Tokyo. The aircraft arrived almost an hour early. Had it arrived on time the whole aircraft and its passengers, likely would have been lost over the Pacific.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 4):There would have been an explosion killing some people in F and J class and perhaps on the ground...but that is about it...the bomb used was about 1lb of symtex. It relied on altitude and decompression to do most of the damage.

Yup. There may have been some loss of life and with a little luck none whatsoever. Remember, fuel is not explosive, but flamable instead. That is why preventing these things it's so difficult, because once the aircraft is airborn, you don't need that big of an explosive device to cause great damange.

PA would have died later because of the 1990 Gulf War and continued loses at the airline. I some times wonder if PA should have sold its self in pieces at the time of the Unted Asia route deal. This would have allowed it greater leverage to make whom ever purchased LHR, Europe, and South America to take employees with their old routes.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 5):I belive the bombing was in retaliation for the dhooting down of IR 655 A300 on 7/4/1988

It was retalition for NATO (US/UK) bombings of Ghadafi's compound in Tripoli. Those bombings were in retaliation for Libyan Agression, including the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin that was frequented in Berlin and their supposed support for terrorists across the world.

Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 11):It was retalition for NATO (US/UK) bombings of Ghadafi's compound in Tripoli. Those bombings were in retaliation for Libyan Agression, including the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin that was frequented in Berlin and their supposed support for terrorists across the world.

Libyan agents also bombed a UTA flight over North Africa.

That's the story post 1990..until the first gulf war, when the US needed Syria as an ally and neutralize Iran, Iran was considered the culprit. With the actual bombing carried out by PFLP GC. Syria was likely in the know but not directly involved, as PFLP GC was HDQ in Damascus. In Oct 1988, PFLP was raided in Hamburg. It is possible the mission was further outsourced to Lybia. I dont discount Lybian involvement, but it was primarily an Iranian plot.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 12):That's the story post 1990..until the first gulf war, when the US needed Syria as an ally and neutralize Iran, Iran was considered the culprit. With the actual bombing carried out by PFLP GC. Syria was likely in the know but not directly involved, as PFLP GC was HDQ in Damascus. In Oct 1988, PFLP was raided in Hamburg. It is possible the mission was further outsourced to Lybia. I dont discount Lybian involvement, but it was primarily an Iranian plot.

The UTA flight in 1989, was definitely Lybia.

Um, that paragraph provides no support to Iranian backing of anything. You've implicated Libya directly several times in there, plus Syria, and then just sorta vaguely accused Iran of "plotting." I'm not saying you're not right, but that paragraph says...nothing about Iran.

I think the evidence of some Iranian involvement is indeed pretty good (the same brand of cassette players used to trigger bombs made by PFLP agents was used in PA103), but to say that it was direct retaliation for the Vincennes is a bit too strong. The PFLP had been making noises about blowing up airliners well before the Vincennes incident as part of a general aggression towards Americans and Israelis, but if they wanted to retaliate, wouldn't they do their own plot to make sure it gets carried through, rather than making a bomb and handing it over to some Libyans, hoping it would work? Also, I'm a bit suspicious of the short timescale between the Vincennes (7/3) and the PA 103 (December). That doesn't seem to be enough time to plan out a whole attack, at least given the general way terrorist organizations seem to run.

The fact that Libyan agents actually carried out the bombing seems rather compelling relative to vague Iranian involvement in PFLP. They had more time to plan, better access, and an equally good motive. Furthermore, there's abundant evidence of them carrying out similar plans in other circumstances.

The hole the bomb created in the side of the plane was about the size of a basketball or dinner plate (I've read this from numerous articles, books on the subject.) What doomed the flight were the shockwaves the bomb created in the belly of plane. The plane didn't really "explode" at 31,000 feet, but rather disintegregated in mid-air.

Quoting KL911 (Reply 1):I would guess that all on board would be lost on the ground as well since all fueltanks would be full. As sad as may be..
Maybe even more casualties since we can assume there could be other fully loaded planes parked around PA 103

I don't agree.
As described in other posts, I think the bomb itself was quite small and it fit inside a small cassette player. My guess - had the plane been at the gate - is that it would have been quite a pop and there would have been immediate smoke and fire, but most passengers would have gotten out alive. It would have taken several minutes for the 747 to have become fully engulfed but perhaps more than enough time for everybody to escape. I'm sure the plane would have been destroyed, and the aircraft and/or surrounding terminal buildings too, but I think the outcome would have been a lot more favorable than the tragic loss of 265 lives at Lockerbie.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7):Yup. There may have been some loss of life and with a little luck none whatsoever. Remember, fuel is not explosive, but flamable instead. That is why preventing these things it's so difficult, because once the aircraft is airborn, you don't need that big of an explosive device to cause great damange.

While you are correct about the characteristics of jet fuel, I should point out that it was not fire that caused PA103 to come down. The force of the explosion was enough to penetrate the aircraft's hull, causing catastrophic depressurization and thus a in-flight breakup. The fire only started after the fuel tanks became exposed, which may not have been the direct result of the bomb. Of course, by that moment, the fate of all onboard had already been sealed.

Sadly, baggage handlers were lost, as the bomb exploded after arrival in Tokyo. The aircraft arrived almost an hour early. Had it arrived on time the whole aircraft and its passengers, likely would have been lost over the Pacific.

That bomb was actually intended for a connecting Air India flight from NRT, in order to bring down 2 AI flights at almost the same time. Unfortunately the bomb on the AI 747 from YYZ (via Montreal Mirabel) to LHR did explode as intended killing all 329 aboard. That bomb was also carried in baggage on a connecting YVR-YYZCP flight. CP was very lucky that day.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 13):The PFLP had been making noises about blowing up airliners well before the Vincennes incident as part of a general aggression towards Americans and Israelis, but if they wanted to retaliate, wouldn't they do their own plot to make sure it gets carried through, rather than making a bomb and handing it over to some Libyans, hoping it would work?

1. I think the Hamburg raid in Oct 1988, put some pressure on PFLP
2. Iran didnt want it traced back to them, Iran also promised some vague retaliation after the Iran Air was shot down

The person suspected of carrying the bomb on board flew out of Beiruit, not Malta. I will not mention his name for fear of not being 100% correct.

I think the bomb was triggered by an altimeter-based device.
I have read that the device was actually loaded in a suitcase on the FRA-LHR flight in the 727.
It was then transferred to the 747. The set up was that once the altimeter had gone below and above
a certain altitude twice, it was set to go off.
I know that this is not the best explanation, but I think it is fairly accurate.
At any rate, I don't think it was a time issue.
Of course the fact that it happened when the aircraft was pressurized resulted in the disaster that
was PA103.

I recall taking a flight JFK-BRU-JFK on AA around October 1988, and for the first time being asked at both airports prior to check in to show my passport, my ticket and answer questions about my luggage. I remember wondering and commenting on the 'hassle' of this procedure. Of course, when PA 103 went down, I understood better the reasons for that 'hassle'. I believe there were general threats by terrorists since earlier in the year to place a bomb on an aircraft in checked or carry on luggage. Unfortunately for PA 103 they didn't do enough checks on the luggage as had been transferred without a pax via FRA to LHR with the bomb in the transferred bag to go off about an hour after leaving the scheduled departure time from LHR. Had there been a further delay and the bomb go off at LHR, then it probably would have killed only a small number of people, the a/c would have been a total loss. I would say that PA was in such financial trouble by the time of the terror of PA 103, that it was just a matter of another recession or attack that it would have failed -and it did later, the Gulf war may have doomed them too.
PA was in deep trouble by PA 103 incluidng other terror attacks, flying in risky areas like Pakistan and competition. Don't forget that they didn't have the level of domestic USA feeder routes to their gateways that other airlines like DL, UA, AA had and were also operating growing numbers of flights flights to Europe, Asia and South America by then, taking away business from PA. You also had a growing number of new airlines like VS and others also affecting PA, especially as to pricing. I would also note that PA 103 did push many people from taking them as it was seen as such a symbol of the USA and thus a huge target of terrorists that people wanted to avoid that risk. To keep pax numbers up due to years of terror and other problems, PA had to offer cheaper fares, one of the reasons that so many students may have been on that flight.

Although Wikipedia is questionable sometimes, there is a good 3 image graphic outlining the explosion found in the main PA 103 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_103
The hole from the explosion was only about 20 inches in size which started the shockwave and everything else in a matter of seconds.

Well this brings up a very good question, although I believe the correct answer is that it wouldn't have gone off. It poses another question about another bombing over the Atlantic. Air India 182, which was delayed in Montreal, blew up near the coast of Ireland, and it was significantly delayed at that. If it had not been delayed, the bomb (as it was intended) would have gone off over the city of London, and then I wonder what the death toll and consequences would have been. But all in all a good question!!!

Pan Am the prime US flag carrier had its share of terrorist attacks over the years. The only other airline that suffered as many attacks was TWA, another high-profile international American airline. To many and especially to terrorists abroad Pan Am and TWA were not only a symbol of America, they WERE the United States of America and therefore were their prime targets and that started a long time ago.

Long before Lockerbie, there was the terrorist attack in Rome on the open runway, a grenade fired into the first class section. There was a terrible incident after take-off from San Francisco, where a Japanese boy was killed by an explosive device under his seat. In 1970 a fully loaded Boeing 747 was hijacked and then blown up on the ground after passengers and crew were given exactly 90 seconds to evacuate the plane. There were bomb threats all the time. And finally on September 5th, 1986 Pan Am flight 73 a Boeing 747 aircraft flying Pan Am´s daily BOM-KHI-FRA-JFK service was hijacked on the ground during the stopover in Karachi. More than 20 people died in the terrible event including many Indian and Pakistani passengers and the flights purser 23 year old Ashoka Chakra awarded Neerja Bhanot.

Quoting Falstaff (Thread starter):Lets just say the plane was delayed for a longer period of time and the bomb blew up before the plane left the ground. How big of an explosion would there have been? Would there have been a similar loss of life assuming the aircraft was loaded?

Okay now back to the topic and question itself.

If the bomb would have gone off before Pan Am 103 left the ground the outcome would have been much less dramatic. There would have been a few casualties, if any at all. Maybe some passengers seated in the first class section and maybe ground personnel, baggage handlers, ramp agents... maybe some people would have been severely injured but not killed. I highly doubt there would have been a fire. The bomb wasn´t even close to one of the fuel tanks.

The bomb itself and the force of the explosion it created was rather small. It consisted of an estimated twelve ounces of a Czech-made plastic explosive known as Semtex, hidden inside a brown Samsonite suitcase. An electronic timer was set an counting up the seconds. As the timer closed a circuit that triggered a detonator embedded in the explosive the Semtex instantaneously transformed into a ball of superheated gas.

The suitcase had been loaded near the side wall of a baggage container, and the container was at the end of the row, so that when the bomb went off it was only twenty-five inches from the skin of the airplane.

So what really destroyed Pan Am 103 was the combination of several things. Location of the bomb, force of explosion, damage it created to the aircraft and its systems, the conditions the aircraft was flying in and under at the point the bomb exploded. If the aircraft would have been parked at the gate the moment the bomb went off there would have been a loud bang probably unnoticed by anyone not within a certain distance from the parked aircraft. I doubt people inside the terminal would have heard or instantly noticed it.

Remember that the force of the explosion went to the side and the blast tore a hole only the size of a basketball in the fuselage. But on the other side of the hull was the thin air of 31,000 feet, the aircraft weighed 700,000 pounds and was travelling at a speed of approximately 500 miles per hour. The aircraft literally disintegrated in mid air due to the shock waves created by the explosion and running down the fuselage, combined with the sudden change in pressure and the 500-mile-an-hour wind of its momentum. There was never a fire in the air. The aircraft's fuel tanks exploded on impact.

The usual explanation, why Pan Am 103 blew-up over Lockerbie instead of the Atlantic Ocean which surely was the terrorist´s intention, is that the plane, scheduled to depart at 6 pm, was not airborne until 6:25. But a Pan Am pilot described that as a typical taxi delay. Pan Am 103 was essentially on time that night. His own theory is that in setting the timer in Malta and put aboard a flight to Frankfurt, Germany, where it connected to Pan Am 103 from FRA to LHR and on to JFK the bombers forgot that local time was an hour earlier in London. That assumes, as nearly everyone does, that the bombers didn't want the wreckage to be found.